The Supreme Court of the United States can be seen on June 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Almond and | AFP | Getty pictures
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the Trump government would make it possible to continue with large-scale reductions by the employees of many authorities in the federal government, since the opponents continue to try to block these efforts with a low court.
The decision of the Supreme Court is not the latest word for the legality of the cuts of individual agencies themselves, which are questioned in a lawsuit that is represented by a group of unions, which are represented by the government and by a handful of US cities and districts.
The High Court will probably check this problem at a later date.
In its non -signed arrangement, the Supreme Court said that the Trump government would probably be successful in its arguments that an order of the executive regulation, which is prepared for the work cuts, was lawful.
However, the judgment added: “We do not express a view of the legality of an agency [Reduction in Force] And reorganization plan generates or approved in accordance with the execution regulations and the memorandum.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only one of the nine members of the court who were deviating from the judgment on Tuesday, who prompted an injunction that blocked the so -called cuts of violence at 19 federal authorities issued by a federal district judge in San Francisco in May.
“In my opinion, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially in view of what this dish knows about what actually happens on site,” Jackson wrote in her contradiction.
“In this case, it is about whether this action is a structural overhaul that changes the political design of the congress – and it is difficult to imagine this question to decide in a meaningful way after these changes have taken place,” she wrote.
“But for some reason, this Court of Justice sees at the beginning of this legal dispute for the entry and publication of the President's demolition ball.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately that she agreed to her liberal colleague Jackson that “the President cannot restructure the federal authorities in a way that is compatible with the mandates of the congress”.
But Sotomayor, who agreed with the majority decision, noted: “The plans themselves are not before this court in this phase, and we therefore have no opportunity to examine whether they can and will match the restrictions of the law.”
“I compete with the court's stay because the district court remains free to check these questions primarily,” she wrote.
President Donald Trump issued an executive regulation in February, in which the federal authorities were led, “immediately preparations for the initiation of a large -scale reduction in Force (RIFS), which is in line with the applicable law”.
The US Attorney General D. John Sauer, who represents the Trump administration in a registration at the Supreme Court, wrote that Trump's “command was based on a firm legal basis and followed a long historical tradition”.
“For at least 150 years, the congress has recognized the authority of the executive recognized to reduce its workforce as required, subject to legal preferences for veteran status and other factors,” wrote Sauer.
But in their connection on May 22, which blocks the murder of violence, the district judge Susan Illson wrote: “President can set the guideline priorities for the executive department, and agency heads can be implemented. This is undisputed.”
“But the congress creates federal authorities, finances them and gives them tasks that – legally – have to carry out them,” added Illston.
“Agencies must not carry out any large -scale restructuring and the reduction in violence with obvious disregard for the mandates of the congress, and a president must not initiate a great restructuring of the executive with the congress,” wrote the judge. “For this reason, nine presidents have obtained the authority from the congress in the past hundred years to reorganize the executive department.
These are a contribution. Please update updates.
Comments are closed.